No Witnesses

This: is not the same as:

What I was trying to show was that Pressie's 1st claim that "hearsay was never used" was contradicted by his 2nd claim that "hearsay was sometimes used".

Have you seen my neighbour?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well ... colour me unconvinced by your doubts.

This makes as much sense to evolutionists as asking:
"Other than those 2 people having the same parents, why do you think that those 2 people are siblings?"Certainly, there are other reasons to think that 2 people are brothers/sisters. e.g. They grew up together in the same house.
But to exclude that key piece of information (that they have the same parents) when trying to identify if they are siblings is completely nonsensical.So, in regards to your question: "Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?"
Certainly, there are other reasons to think that chimps and humans are closely related. e.g. physical similarities.
But to exclude that key piece of information (that chimps and humans are genetically related) when trying to identify if they should be classified together is completely nonsensical.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

(Which seems to be a weird complaint considering your requests for eye-witness accounts.)But your disbelief in the possibility of mammals evolving from land-based to water-based is completely undermined by the fact that there exists mammals in many different stages of adaptation.Your claim that something like a seal couldn't evolve into something like a manatee has no foundation.
The physical differences between a seal and a manatee are similar in scope to the differences between a cat and a fox.
But a seal spends a lot of time on land and a manatee never goes on land.What aspect of that change do you think is impossible?
Which physical change do you think couldn't happen?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

What the photos show are 3 (of 100's) of mammals with either partial or complete adaptation to living in water. (FYI: they are an otter, a seal and a manatee.)When someone claims that it is not possible for a land-based mammal to evolve into a water-based mammal, then the fact that there exists many mammals, all at different levels of adaptation to water, flies in the face of that negative claim.
They would at least need to explain what would prevent this evolution, as clearly there is no actual physical limitation to mammals having partial or complete adaptation to water.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I kinda skipped his question as he had not understood why I had posted the 3 photos. I guess it all depends on what FY means by "used to be".
If he means that thousands of generations ago seals used to look more like otters, then that is fine. (I have used that turn of phrase myself when talking about evolved species.)
But if he means a seal was born looking like an otter and changed into a seal over several years, then that is not fine.